Affordable Condominium Housing
A comparative analysis of low-income homeownership in Colombia and Ecuador
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7480/abe.2018.23.2605Keywords:
Ecuador, housing, condominiumAbstract
Both the general public and policy makers see home ownership as a major life goal. Owning a home is a form of capital that creates a social safety net (Elsinga, 2005; Moser, 2009). Home ownership can also help boost self-esteem and contribute to housing satisfaction (Elsinga & Hoekstra, 2005; Marcuse, 1972). In South America, owning your own home is a way to ensure basic economic security and is a dream shared by everyone. For this reason, large-scale investments are needed in owner-occupied homes for low-income buyers. A different light is shed on this dream however when it becomes clear that the quality of subsidized property for low-income groups is subpar due to poor maintenance and buildings quickly deteriorate. This occurs in Chile, Mexico, Brazil, Colombia and Ecuador (Paquette-Vasalli & Sanchez, 2009; Rodriguez & Sugranyes, 2005; Rojas, 2010).
Most studies into housing quality and poor maintenance have been conducted among single-family homes owned by individuals. In South America, especially in cities, low-income homes are usually apartments. This means ownership is shared with other building residents. Most maintenance-related issues occur in joint ownership properties and there is little literature available on this topic.
The aim of this study is to gain more insight into how homeowner’s associations work in low-income owner-occupied apartments. When parts of the residential buildings such as the ground on which they are built and the infrastructure are joint property, then a homeowner´s association is necessary to keep maintenance of the common property parts. The lack of maintenance of these communal areas is a problem of increasing proportions, which has prompted this research. Which factors play a decisive role in how homeowner’s associations function and how building maintenance is organized, how important is the horizontal property law and how does this affect low-income housing policy in Colombia and Ecuador?
This PhD dissertation consists of three components: Part 1 presents the research question, the theoretical framework and the research methods. Part 2 discusses the formal institutions (the rules of the game) involved: housing policy and the property law. Part 3 discusses the informal rules which include the cooperation between professionals and the interaction with residents (the play of the game). The summary includes conclusions and implications for follow-up research and policy.
Theory and research methods
Comparative housing research can serve multiple purposes; for example to evaluate policy and perhaps implement policy that has been successful in other countries. This dissertation is based on a comparative study of two countries and uses the “middle range approach” as discussed in Haffner et al. (2010). With this approach, the assumption is that institutional differences between countries are of crucial importance, but that a comparison is worthwhile and may prove beneficial. This dissertation has a comparative structure that takes institutional differences that are important to home ownership of low-income families into account (Elsinga, 1998; Oxley, 2001; Ruonavaara, 1993; Stephens, 2011). The central hypothesis is that the design of the horizontal property law is of great importance to the effectiveness of homeowner’s associations and maintenance levels of buildings and homes. A comparison of Colombia and Ecuador, neighboring countries with similar housing systems and cultures but different horizontal property law, is a good way to test this hypothesis.
The horizontal property law or law for condominium form of ownership is a formal institution. Formal institutions, together with the informal institutions such as values, determine the rules of the game for actors. (North, 1994:360). This institutional approach is beneficial to studying the functioning of homeowner’s associations. In the further elaboration of the research framework, Ostrom´s (1990, 2005) institutional analysis and development framework (IAD) was used as a starting point.
The Institutional Analysis & Development (IAD) framework makes it possible to analyze the actions in a complex situation and to map the multiple positions of actors. The IAD framework distinguishes three groups of important factors: characteristics of the community, the rules used and the physical characteristics of the common property (Ostrom, 1990, 2005). An important assumption is that actors are not necessarily selfish and rational. Another assumption is that people are not by definition helpless and unable to work together. The Ostrom approach provides researchers with a framework for mapping out the potential contributions of a community. This framework provides good leads for the analysis of the central problem in this dissertation: poor maintenance in collective homeownership.
The first part of the analysis focuses on the formal institutions: the housing policy and horizontal property law (Rules of the game). Policy documents and available statistics were studied in the analysis of housing policy. Subsequently, the property law in Colombia and Ecuador were subjected to a thorough analysis of the law. The focus was on the regulations in the law that support self-government or instead stipulate the role of a professional to be in charge of management and maintenance
A network analysis was then applied to study cooperation among the professionals involved in the provision of low-income housing in condominium. This analysis involved professionals from the municipality, developers, property managers, banks and social workers in Quito and then Bogota. These analyses were conducted using focus groups. The main focus during the discussion was the recognition of the problem of poor maintenance, an analysis of the possible causes and an exploration of possible solutions. The network approach appears to be useful because it shows that there is complexity and a large degree of interdependence among actors.
The analysis of the role of the residents was identified with a survey among 414 residents of 8 different housing complexes with low-income condominium housing. It involved 4 blocks from different construction years in Quito and 4 blocks from different construction years in Bogota. The questionnaire distributed among residents was inspired by Ostrom’s IAD framework.
The “mixed method” approach was necessary to map the interaction between formal and informal institutions. This approach is the result of the choice for a “middle range” approach that distills the similarities and differences between two cities/countries with different institutions. The aim is to learn lessons that can lead to improvements in the maintenance in homeowner’s associations for low-income households.
“Rules of the game”
In both Bogota and Quito, the majority of households live in owner-occupied dwellings, mostly apartments in condominium. The government housing policy in both countries mainly consists of subsidizing owner-occupied homes for low-income households. The description of the housing policy shows that building homes is a complex affair that requires a great deal of cooperation between parties including local governments, developers, the land registry, funding bodies and the national government as the subsidy provider. Finally it appears that the registration of the policy outcome gives incomplete information for policy evaluation. In practice, homes that are built are registered as single units when they are actually part of housing complex in condominium.
The horizontal property law plays a key role in how homeowner’s associations function. The law defines which actors are responsible for the management and maintenance of the shared property. Research has revealed that there are key differences between the laws in the two countries. In Colombia the law stipulates that the first assembly meeting of the homeowner’s association must be called by the builder. In Ostrom’s words: Colombia has embedded a collective choice-rule in a constitutional one. This concerns a clear and unambiguous anchoring of the body most important to how a homeowner’s association functions. In Ecuador, the law does not provide a definitive answer on when a homeowner’s association should be established. In practice, it turns out that it’s usually up to the project developer to make this decision. Another important difference between the two laws is the responsibility for the management of the homeowner’s association. In Colombia, the law stipulates that this must be organized by a professional and paid manager of the homeowner’s association, whereas the law in Ecuador is more flexible and it allows for the position to be filled by a volunteer or paid position if the association can afford it.
“Play of the game”
In both Bogota and in Quito, professionals have indicated that in the realization of owner-occupied apartments for low-income families, they depend on the local government and funding bodies. In both cities a link was found between maintenance issues related to homeowner’s associations and the contents of the horizontal property law specifically lack of clarity about the rights and obligations of the joint owners. The law is not clear to everyone and not everyone is aware of the law. The analysis shows that all participants acknowledge the problem, can identify various causes and agree that it is unclear who the responsible party or problem owner is.
For Bogota, research showed that overdue maintenance problems are usually due to poor management decisions by the professional responsible for the homeowner’s association. Research in Quito yields other explanations: a lack of community spirit, lack of respect for rules and standards and different ideas about the use of common spaces. From this it can be concluded that there is a connection between how homeowner’s associations in Bogota and Quito function and the property laws in Colombia and Ecuador. In the words of Ostrom: “the activities and policies of external political regimes can affect the level and type of self-organization to achieve collective benefits” (Ostrom, 1990: 190). The professionals recognize and emphasize that their role and interpretation affects how homeowner’s associations function in the long term.
The perception and opinion of the residents about maintenance problems was mapped out on the basis of a survey that was carried out in 2014. The survey included questions about the composition and characteristics of the households, their awareness of their position in the homeowner’s association, their behavior and their relationship with the condominium regulations. The results are in line with Ostrom’s framework. It appears that: (1) trust in leaders of the community, (2) agreement about who is responsible for maintenance, (3) participation in assembly meetings, and (4) adequate physical conditions of the building, are conditions for adequate maintenance outcomes. Owners collectively need information, as well as knowledge about rules, to be able to manage the condominium.
Conclusions
The results show that legal obligations can have a counterproductive effect on the involvement and self-organization of homeowners. The property law in Colombia stipulates that a professional administrator must be appointed to manage the homeowner’s association. The result is that residents feel less personal responsibility and attend fewer meetings of the homeowner’s association.
In Ecuador, the rules for maintenance are much more flexible and the chairman of the homeowner’s association can assume the role of manager. As a result, the residents appear to be more involved in the homeowner’s association’s decision-making processes, but are generally less satisfied with the outcome.
The horizontal property law plays a key role in achieving better maintenance results in Bogota. The project developer is responsible for ensuring the legal requirement to appoint a professional homeowner’s association administrator. The law stipulates that a maintenance plan must be drawn up before building materials in the residences start showing signs of deterioration. A maintenance plan and a detailed payment plan for contributions to the homeowner’s association must be ready by the time the homes are completed and residents move in. This is in line with Ostrom’s IAD framework, when she says that when rules of the game are known, specifically the benefits and costs, the outcomes are more satisfactory (Ostrom, 1990).
Most studies into maintenance by homeowner’s associations research the relationship between maintenance and the characteristics of households and homes (Orban, 2006; Alterman, 2010; Hastings et al., 2006). This study also included these variables in addition to the formal rules and the ability to self-organize in homeowner’s associations. By using the IAD framework, it became possible to investigate the interaction between formal and informal institutions (play of the game). A comparison of the “play of the game” in Bogota and Quito allowed for conclusions to be drawn about the influence of the differences in both countries’ property laws.
Uncovering the relationship between the horizontal property law and its effect on the functioning of a homeowner’s association through a combination of quantitative and qualitative research is an added value of this research. The significance of these outcomes goes beyond Bogota and Quito and contributes to insight into mechanisms in the functioning of home owner’s associations in general (Bengtsson & Hertting, 2014).
Implications for future research
This research provides input for the research questions of the future. A first follow-up line of inquiry is the impact of the functioning of homeowner’s associations and the maintenance results on the increasing value of homes. Further studies are required into the functioning of the owner-occupied apartment market and specifically the role of collectivity in housing preferences, how maintenance fees are set and how the organization of a homeowner’s association influences the value of apartments.
Dilapidated homes have a major impact on the quality of life in neighborhoods. Urbanization, densification and promoting homeownership go hand in hand. The share of owner-occupied apartments is raising rapidly and with it the risk of poorly functioning homeowner’s associations. The management of collective homeownership is part of the research agenda of sustainable, resilient and smart cities.
This dissertation presents a framework for international comparative research into the functioning of homeowner’s associations. Insight into the interaction between formal and informal institutions is crucial in a world in which citizens have to take personal responsibility, governments have ambitious goals and quality of housing and life is at risk.
This dissertation shows that the number of homeowners’ associations is greater than official records indicate. There is room for improvement when it comes to the registration of property because this is essential to good housing policy implementation and evaluation.
Policy implications
As cities grow, densification and the continued construction of apartment buildings require policy for owner-occupied apartments that is featured prominently in housing policy. Poor maintenance of common property parts is a collective issue that has major implications for the quality of life in urban areas and the asset of individual homeowners. National policy for the construction of subsidized owner-occupied homes must be accompanied by local policies for the proper management of homeowner’s associations.
The quality and sustainability of low-income housing should be part of housing policy monitoring and evaluation. Shared spaces and common land with facilities deserve special attention. The joint ownership of land and facilities can also be a source of income and joy.
Climate change has implications for the quality and sustainability requirements of homes, which will inevitably lead to large-scale renovations. Renovation requires collective decision-making for façades and other parts of the building that are viewed as the collective property of the homeowner’s association. The availability of funding options is also extremely important for these types of renovations and this is a responsibility for the government and for profit and non-profit financial institutions to facilitate access to financing that can be paid off by the homeowner´s association.
Natural disasters such as earthquakes occur frequently in Bogota and Quito. Joint ownership requires joint insurance for earthquake damage. The 2016 Quito earthquake may serve as a wake-up call in this respect. If there are collective action dilemmas and apartment buildings do not comply with the law regarding the obligatory requirement to have insurance for all kinds of damages, the government can play a role in overcoming these dilemmas by offering guarantees. Policy for condominium ownership in growing cities is essential to creating resilient cities.
The old adage ‘my home is my castle’ is in dire need of adaptation in the case of condominiums, as “our castle” would be more appropriate here.
References
Acosta, M. E. (2009). La gestión de la vivienda social en el Ecuador: entre la espada y la pared Ecuador Debate, 76, 93-106.
Agrawal, A. (2001). Common Property Institutions and Sustainable Governance of Resources World Development, 29(10), 1649-1672.
Alterman, R. (2010). The Maintenance of Residential Towers in Condominium Tenure: A comparative Analysis of Two Extremes - Israel and Florida. In S. Blandy, A. Dupuis, & J. Dixon (Eds.), Multi-owned housing: law, power and practice (pp. 73-90). Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Alzate, M. C. (2006). La estratificacion socioeconomica para el cobro de los servicios publicos domiciliarios en Colombia. Solidaridad o focalizacion? Retrieved from Bogota:
Arbelaez, M. A., Camacho, C., & Fajardo, J. (2011). Low-income Housing Finance in Colombia. Retrieved from Washington D.C. :
Ardilla Gomez, A. (1997). The Decentralization of the Government of Bogotá: Benefits, Problems and Possible Solutions (Master in City Planning), Massachusets Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. Retrieved from http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/63212/37788363-MIT.pdf?sequence=2
Assche, K. V., Beunen, R., & Duineveld, M. (2014). Evolutionary Governance Theory. An Introduction Heidelberg: Springer.
Axelrod, R. (1981). The Emergence of Cooperation among Egoists. The American Political Science Review, 75(2), 306-318. doi:10.2307/1961366
Balchin, P., & Stewart, J. (2001). Social housing in Latin America: Opportunities for affordability in a region of housing need. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 16(3-4), 333-341. doi:10.1023/A:1012520013862
Baldwin, R. (1990). Why Rules Don’t Work. The Modern Law Review, 53(3), 321-337.
Baldwin, R., & Cave, M. (1999). Understanding Regulation. Theory, Strategy and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ball, M., & Harloe, M. (1992). Rethorical barriers to understanding housing provision: What the ‘provision thesis’is and is not Housing Studies, 7(1), 3-15.
Ballen, S. (2009). Vivienda social en altura. Tipologias Urbanas y directrices de producción en Bogotá Bogota: Universidad Nacional de Colombia
Barlow, J., & Duncan, S. (1988). The use and abuse of housing tenure. Housing Studies, 3(4), 219-231. doi:10.1080/02673038808720632
Bengtsson, B. (1998). Tenant’s Dilemma - On Collective Action in Housing. Housing Studies, 13(1), 99-120.
Bengtsson, B. (2012). Game Theory. In S. J. Smith (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Housing and Home (Vol. 2, pp. 227-231). Amsterdam: Elservier.
Bengtsson, B. (2012). Housing Politics and Political Science. In D. F. Clapham, W. A. V. Clark, & K. Gibb (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Housing. London: SAGe Publications Ltd.
Bengtsson, B., & Hertting, N. (2014). Generalization by Mechanism. Thin rationality and Ideal-type Analysis in Case Study Research. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 44(6), 707-732.
Bengtsson, B., & Ruonavaara, H. (2010). Introduction to the Special Issue: Path Dependence in Housing. Housing, Theory and Society, 27(3), 193-203.
Bengtsson, B., & Ruonavaara, H. (2011). Comparative Process Tracing in Housing Studies. International Journal of Housing Policy, 11(4), 395-414. doi:10.1080/14616718.2011.626603
Bennett, D. S. (2011). Condominium Homeownership in the United States: Selected Annotated Bibliography of Legal Souces Law Library Journal, 103(2), 2011-2016. Retrieved from http://www.aallnet.org/mm/Publications/llj/LLJ-Archives/Vol-103/Spring-2011/2011-16.pdf
Black, J. (2002). Critical Reflections on Regulation. Retrieved from London:
Blanco, A. G., Cibils, V. F., & Muñoz, A. F. (2014). Rental Housing Wanted , Policy Options for Latin America and the Caribbean Retrieved from Washington D.C.:
Blandy, S., Dupuis, A., & Dixon, J. (Eds.). (2010). Multi-owned housing: law, power and practice Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Blandy, S., Dixon, J., & Dupuis, A. (2006). Theorising Power Relationships in Multi-owned Residential Developments: Unpacking the Bundle of Rights. Urban Studies, 43(13), 2365-2383. doi:10.1080/00420980600970656
Blandy, S., & Goodchild, B. (1999). From Tenure to Rights: Conceptualizing the Changing Focus of Housing Law in England. Housing, Theory and Society, 16(1), 31-42. doi:10.1080/14036099950150071
Blandy, S., & Hunter, C. (2012). Socio-legal Perespectives. In S. J. Smith (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Housing and Home (First Edition ed., Vol. 6). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Boelhouwer, P., & van der Heijden, H. (1993a). Housing policy in seven European countries: The role of politics in housing. Netherlands journal of housing and the built environment, 8(4), 383-404. doi:10.1007/bf02496562
Boelhouwer, P., & van der Heijden, H. (1993b). Methodological trends in international comparative housing research. Netherlands journal of housing and the built environment, 8(4), 371-382. doi:10.1007/bf02496561
Brannen, J. (2005). Mixing Methods: The Entry of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches into the Research Process. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(3), 173-184.
Bromley, R. (2003). Peru 1957–1977: How time and place influenced John Turner’s ideas on housing policy. Habitat International, 27(2), 271-292. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0197-3975(02)00049-8
Bueren, E. v., & Heuvelhof, E. t. (2005). Improving governance arrangements in support of sustainable cities. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 32, 47-66.
CAMACOL. (2012). Subsidios Plenos y La Nueva Ley de vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano. Bogota. Retrieved from http://camacol.co/sites/default/files/secciones_internas/Informe%20Econ%C3%B3mico-Julio-No%2038_0.pdf
Cárdenas, J. C. (2009). Dilemas de lo colectivo: instituciones, pobreza y cooperación en el manejo local de los recursos de uso común. Bogota: Universidad de Los Andes, Facultad de Economia, CEDE, Ediciones Uniandes.
Castles, F. G., & Ferrera, M. (1996). Home Ownership and the Welfare State: Is Southern Europe Different? South European Society and Politics, 1(2), 163-185. doi:10.1080/13608749608539470
Chen, S. C. Y. (2011). Common Interest Development and the Changing Roles of Government and Market in Planning. Urban Studies, 48(16), 3599-3612. doi:10.1177/0042098010394687
Chen, S. C. Y., & Webster, C. J. (2005). Homeowners Associations, Collective Action and the Costs of Private Governance. Housing Studies, 20(2), 205-220. doi:10.1080/026730303042000331736
Choe, J. (1992). The organization of urban common-property institutions: the case of apartment communities in Seoul. (Doctor of Philosophy ), Indiana University Bloomington.
Chu, F.-N., Chang, C.-O., & Sing, T. F. (2012). Collective action dilemmas in condominium management. Urban Studies, 50(1), 128-147.
Colombia, C. d. l. R. d. (2004). Pasado, presente y futuro de las Cajas de Compensación Familiar. Bogota Retrieved from ftp://ftp.camara.gov.co/uatl/eal/041%20CAJAS%20DE%20COMPENSACI%C3%83%E2%80%9CN%20FAMILIAR%20EN%20COLOMBIA.pdf.
Cribbet, J. E. (1963). Condominium, Home Ownership of Megalopolis? . Michigan Law Review, 61, 1207-1244.
Dawes, R. M., & Messick, D. M. (2000). Social Dilemmas. International Journal of Psychology, 35(2), 111-116. doi:10.1080/002075900399402
Demsetz, H. (1967). Toward a Theory of Property Rights. The American Economic Review, 57(2), 347-359. doi:10.2307/1821637
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160. doi:10.2307/2095101
Doling, J. (1997). Comparative Housing Policy : Governement and Housig in Advanced Industrialized Countries New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Doling, J. & Elsinga, M. (2013). Demographic change and Housing Wealth: Homeowners, Pensions and Asset-Based Welfare in Europe. Dordrecht: Springer.
Doling, J., & Ronald, R. (2010). Home ownership and asset-based welfare. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 25(2), 165-173.
Donoso, R. E. (2008). A Case Study of Housing Programs in the Historic Center of Quito: The Need for Planning Direction (1990-2007). (MSc. in Community and Regional Planning ), The University of Texas Austin.
Donoso, R. E. & Elsinga, M. (2016). Housing in Latin America and the Caribbean In K. B. Anacker, A. Carswell, Sarah D. Kirby, & K. T. Tremblay. (Eds.), Introduction to Housing. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
Earl, P. E., & Potts, J. (2011). A Nobel Prize for Governance and Institutions: Oliver Williamson and Elinor Ostrom. Review of Political Economy, 23(1), 1-24. doi:10.1080/09538259.2011.526291
Edelman, L. & Suchman, M. (1997). The Legal Environments of Organizations. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 479-515.
Elsinga, De Decker, P., Teller, N., & Toussaint, J. (Eds.). (2007). Home ownership Beyond asset and security. Perceptions of housing related security and insecurity in eight European countries. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Elsinga, M. (1998). The meaning of tenure under different conditions; empirical evidence from the Netherlands. Netherlands journal of housing and the built environment, 13(2), 137-155. doi:10.1007/bf02497226
Elsinga, M. (2005). Affordable and low-risk home ownership. In P. Boelhouwer, J. Doling, & M. Elsinga (Eds.), Home ownership. Getting in, getting from, getting out. Delft: IOS Press.
Elsinga, M., & Hoekstra, J. (2005). Homeownership and housing satisfaction. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 20, 401-424.
Enserink, B., Hermans, L., Kwakkel, J., Thissen, W., Koppenjan, J., & Bots, P. (2010). Policy Analysis of Multi-Actor Systems The Hague: Uitgeverij LEMMA.
Esquivel, M. T. (2008). Conjuntos Habitacionales, imaginarios de vida colectiva. Iztapalapa, 64-65(29), 117-143. doi:http://tesiuami.uam.mx/revistasuam/iztapalapa/viewarticle.php?id=1653
Fallow, G., & Brown, R. B. (2002). Focusing on focus groups: lessons from a research project involving a Bangladeshi community Qualitative Research, 2(2), 195-208.
Ferguson, B., & Navarrete, J. (2003). New approaches to progressive housing in Latin America: A key to habitat programs and policy. Habitat International, 27(2), 309-323. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0197-3975(03)00013-4
Ferguson, B., Rubinstein, J., & Vial, V. D. (1996). THE DESIGN OF DIRECT DEMAND SUBSIDY PROGRAMS FOR HOUSING IN LATIN AMERICA. Review of Urban & Regional Development Studies, 8(2), 202-219. doi:10.1111/j.1467-940X.1996.tb00118.x
Florian, A. (2012). El Derecho a la Vivienda. In J. F. Pinilla & M. Rengifo (Eds.), La Ciudad y el Derecho. Bogota: Editorial TEMIS.
Forero S., F. E., & Forero F., J. A. (2009). Vivienda Social, Modernidad e Informalidad en Bogota (1911-1982). Bogota: Universidad La Gran Colombia.
Galster, G. C. (1983). Empirical Evidence on Cross-Tenure Differences in Home Maintenance and Conditions. Land Economics, 59(1), 107-113. doi:10.2307/3145880
Galster, G. C. (1987). Homeowners and Neighborhood Reinvestment: Duke University Press.
Garcia, J. (Producer). (2014). Tratados Internacionales de Derechos Humanos: Diferenciación con otros tratados [ International Human Rights Treaties: Differentiation with other treaties]. Retrieved from http://www.derechoecuador.com/articulos/detalle/archive/doctrinas/derechoconstitucional/2014/01/23/tratados-internacionales-de-derechos-humanos---diferenciacion--con-otros-tratados
Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory. Action, structure and contradiction in social anlysis. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd.
Gilbert, A. (2004). Helping the poor through housing subsidies: lessons from Chile, Colombia and South Africa. Habitat International, 28, 13-40.
Gilbert, A. (2012a). De Soto´s The Mystery of Capital: reflections on the book´s impact. International Development Planning Review, 34(2).
Gilbert, A. (2012b). Housing Abroad: Latin America. The Encyclopedia of Housing. SAGE Publications, Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Gilbert, A. G., & Ward, P. M. (1982). Residential Movement among the Poor: The Constraints on Housing Choice in Latin American Cities. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 7(2), 129-149. doi:10.2307/622218
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: strategies for qualitative reserach New York: Aldine de Gruyter
Glasse, M., & Berrisfor, S. (2015). Urban Law: A Key to Accountable Urban Government and Effective Urban Service Delivery In J. Wouters, A. Ninio, T. doherty, & H. Cissé (Eds.), The World Banck Legal Review. Improving Delivery in Development: The Role of Voice, Social Contract and Accountability (Vol. 6). Washington DC: The World Bank
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evalation Designs. Eduation Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274.
Grover, R., Munro-Faure, P., & Solviev, M. (2002). Housing Tenure change in the transitional economies. In G. Payne (Ed.), Land, Rights & Innovation : Improving Tenure Security for the Urban Poor. London: ITDG.
Groves, R., Murie, A., & Watson, C. (2007). Housing and the new welfare state. Perspectives from East Asia and Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Guest, G. (2012). Describing Mixed Methods Research: An Alternative to Typologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 20(10), 1-11.
Haffner, M., Hoekstra, J., Oxley, M., & Heijden, H. V. D. (2010). Universalistic, Particularistic and Middle Way Approaches to Comparing the Private Rental Sector. International Journal of Housing Policy, 10(4), 357-377. doi:10.1080/14616718.2010.526400
Haffner, M., Hoekstra, J., Oxley, M., & Van Der Heijden, H. (2009). Bridging the Gat Between Social and Market Rental Housing in Six European Countries Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Hansmann, H. (1991). Condominium and Cooperative Housing: Transactional Efficiency, Tax Subsidies and Tenure Choice. Journal of Legal Studies, 20.
Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243-1248. doi:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
Hardin, R. (1992). The Street-Level Epistemology of Trust. Analyse and Kritik, 14, 152-176.
Harloe, M., & Martens, M. (1984). Comparative Housing Research. Journal of Social Policy, 13(03), 255-277. doi:10.1017/S0047279400013751
Heijden, H. V. d. (2013). West European Housing Systems in a Comparative Perspective (Vol. 46). Delft: IOS.
Held, G. (2000). Politicas de vivienda de interes social orientadas al mercado: experiencias recientes con subsidios a la demanda en Chile, Costa Rica y Colombia. Retrieved from Santiago: http://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/5304/S00050485_es.pdf?sequence=1
Hennink, M., Hutter, I., & Bailey, A. (2011). Qualitative Reserach Methods. London: SAGE.
Ho, D. C. W., & Gao, W. (2013). Collective action in apartment building management in Hong Kong. Habitat International, 38, 10-17.
Hoekstra, J. (2010). Divergence in European welfare and housing systems (Vol. 38). Delft: IOS Press BV, Delft Univeristy Press.
Hsieh, H. R. (2009). Issues and proposed improvements regarding condominium management in Taiwan. Habitat International, 33, 73-80.
Kemeny, J. (1992). Housing and social theory. London: Routledge.
Kemeny, J., & Lowe, S. (1998). Schools of Comparative Housing Research: From Convergence to Divergence. Housing Studies, 13(2), 161-176. doi:10.1080/02673039883380
Kickert, W. J. M., Klijn, E.-H., & F.M.Koppenjan, J. (Eds.). (1997). Managing Complex Networks : Strategies for the Public Sector. London: SAGE Publications.
Klaufus, C. (2010). The two ABCs of aided self-help housing in Ecuador. Habitat International, 34, 351-358.
Kleinhans, R., & Bolt, G. (2013). More than just fear: on the intricate interplay between perceived neighborhood disorder, collective efficacy, and action Journal of Urban Affairs, 36(3), 420-446.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus Groups. A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Lennartz, C. (2011). Power Structures and Privatization across Integrated Rental Markets: Exploring the Cleavage between Typologies of Welfare Regimes and Housing Systems. Housing, Theory and Society, 28(4), 342-359. doi:10.1080/14036096.2011.562626
Littlewood, A., & Munro, M. (1996). Explaining disrepair: Examining owner occupiers’ repair and maintenance behaviour. Housing Studies, 11(4), 503-525. doi:10.1080/02673039608720872
Lizarralde, G. (2015). The invisible housing. New York: Routledge.
Lowry, G. (2002). Modelling user acceptance of building management systems. Automation in Construction, 11(6), 695-705. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0926-5805(02)00010-9
Lujanen, M. (2010). Legal challenges in ensuring regular maintenance and repairs of owner‐occupied apartment blocks. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 2(2), 178-197. doi:doi:10.1108/17561451011058807
Maldonado, M. M. (2005). Es posible anticiparse a la urbanización informal? Reflexiones a partir de la Operación Urbanística Nuevo Usme, Bogota y del MacroProyecto Ciudadela Gonzalo Vallejo Restrepo, Pereira (Colombia). Retrieved from Bogota:
Malpass, P. (2011). Path Dependence and the Measurement of Change in Housing Policy. Housing, Theory and Society, 28(4), 305-319. doi:10.1080/14036096.2011.554852
Mangin, W. (1967). Latin American squatter settlements: a problem and a solution. Latin American Research Review, 2(3), 65-98.
Marcuse, P. (1972). Homeownership for Low Income Families: Financial Implications. Land Economics, 48(2), 134-143.
McGinnis, M. D., & Ostrom, E. (2014). Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecology and Society, 19(2). doi:10.5751/es-06387-190230
McKenzie, E. (1994). Privatopia: Homeowners Associations and the Rise of Residential Private Government. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Meijer, F., & Smid, I. (1994). Vereniging van Eigenaren: Ervaringen en Perspectieven Retrieved from
Mejia, M. E. (2006). Del discurso de vivienda al espacio residencial. El caso de vivienda en altura en sistema constructivo de cajón. . (Master ), Universidad Nacional, Medellin.
Merwe, C. G. v. d. (2008). The Adaptation of the Institution of Apartment Ownership to Civilian Property Law Structures in the Mixed Jurisdictions of South Africa, Sri Lanka and Louisiana Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, 12(1). Retrieved from http://www.ejcl.org/121/art121-25.pdf
Merwe, C. V. D. (2015). European Condominium Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Molsalve, G. A. (2003). El Sistema de Subsidio Familiar en la Seguridad Social Colombiana. VNIVERSITAS, 106, 455-504.
Montoya, A. P. (2004). Vivienda Moderna en Colombia [Modern housing in Colombia] (Vol. 10). Bogota: Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
Moser, C. (1998). The asset vulnerability framework: Reassessing urban poverty reduction strategies. World Development, 26(1), 1-19. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(97)10015-8
Moser, C. (2009). Ordinary Families, Estraordinary Lives. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Mossel, J. H. v. (2008). The purchasing of maintenance service delivery in the Dutch social housing sector: optimising commodity strategies for delivering maintenance services to tenants. (Proefschrift PhD), Delft University of Techonology Delft.
Nee, V. (1998). Norms and Networks in Economic and Organizational Performance. The American Economic Review, 88(2), 85-89. doi:10.2307/116898
Nee, V., & Ingram, P. (1998). Embeddedness and Beyond: Institutions, Exchange, and Social Structure In M. C. Brinton & V. Nee (Eds.), The New Institutionalism in Sociology Standford: Standford University Press.
North, D. (1994). Economic Performance Through Time. The American Economic Review, 83(3), 359-368.
Olson, M. (1965). Logic of Collective Action (Ninth Print, 1982 ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Orban, A. (2006). Community action for collective goods: an interdisciplinary approach to the internal and external solutions to collective action problems. The case of Hungarian Condominiums Budapest: Akademaiai Kiado
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: the evolutions of institutions for collective action Cambridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press.
Ostrom, E. (2003). How Types of Goods and Property Rights Jointly Affect Collective Action. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 15(3), 239-270. doi:10.1177/0951692803015003002
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (2006). Rules, Games and Common-Pool Resources. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15181-15187. doi:10.1073/pnas.0702288104
Ostrom, E. (2009a). Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems. Paper presented at the Nobel Prize Lecture
Ostrom, E. (2009b). Design Principles of Robust Property Rights Institutions: What Have We Learned? In G. K. Ingram & Y.-H. Hong (Eds.), Property Rights and Land Policies Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
Ostrom, E. (2009c). A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science, 325(5939), 419-422. doi:10.1126/science.1172133
Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems. The American Economic Review, 100(3), 641-672. doi:10.2307/27871226
Oxley, M. (2001). Meaning, science, context and confusion in comparative housing research. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 16(1), 89-106. doi:10.1023/A:1011599006494
Oxley, M., & Haffner, M. (2012). Comparative Housing Research. In S. J. Smith (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Housing and Home (Vol. 1, pp. 199-209). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Paquette-Vasalli, C., & Sanchez, M. Y. (2009). Massive housing production in Mexico City: debating two policies Centro h, Revista de la Organización Latinoamericana y del Caribe de Centros Históricos, 3, 1390-4361. Retrieved from http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/1151/115112536002.pdf
Park, S., & Baek, C. (2012). Fiscal instruments for sustainable maintenance of apartment housing in Korea. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(7), 4432-4444. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.05.012
Paz, R. D. O. d. (2014). Avaliação do Trabalho Social e dos Impactos na Vida das Famílias no Programa Minha Casa Minha Vida, no Município de Osasco/SP. Paper presented at the III Encontro da Associação Nacional de Pesquisa e Pós-graduação em Arquitetura e Urbanismo; Arquitetura, cidade e projeto: uma construção coletiva Sao Paulo.
Pickvance, C. (2001). Four varieties of comparative analysis. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 16(1), 7-28. doi:10.1023/A:1011533211521
Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Ploeger, R., Lawson, J., & Bontje, M. (2001). The methodological challenge to comparative research Jounal of Housing and the Built Environment, 16.
Poteete, A. R., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2010). Working together: collective action, the commons, and multiple methods in practice. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Poteete, A. R., & Ostrom, E. (2004). Heterogeneity, Group Size and Collective Action: The Role of Institutions in Forest Management. Development and Change, 35(3), 435-461. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7660.2004.00360.x
Rabenhorst, C. S., & Ignatova, S. I. (2009). Condominium Housing and Mortage Lending in Emergin Markets - Constraints and Opportunities. Retrieved from
Robertson, D. (2012). Collective Ownership. In S. J. Smith (Ed.), International Ecyclopedia of Housing and Home (Vol. 1, pp. 181-185). Amsterdam Elsevier.
Rodriguez, A., & Sugranyes, A. (Eds.). (2005). Los con techo. Un desafío para la política de vivienda social. [ Those with Roofs. A Challenge for Social Housing Policy] Santiago de Chile: Ediciones Sur
Rohan, P. J. (1967). Perfecting The Condominium as a Housing Tool: Innovation in Tort Liability and Insurance. Law and Contemporary Problems, 32(2), 305-318.
Rohan, P. J. (1978). The “Model Condominium Code” a Blueprint for modernizing condominium legislation Columbia Law Review, 18(3), 587-608.
Rohe, W. M., & Basolo, V. (1997). Long-Term Effects of Homeownership on the Self-Perceptions and Social Interaction of Low-Income Persons. Environment and Behavior, 29(6), 793-819. doi:10.1177/0013916597296004
Rojas, E. (2001). The Long Road to Housing Sector Reform: Lessons from the Chilean Housing Experience. Housing Studies, 16(4), 461-483. doi:10.1080/02673030120066554
Rojas, E. (Ed.) (2010). Building cities: Neighbourhood upgrading and urban quality of life. . Washington, D.C.: Inter-American Development Bank.
Rolnik, R. (2013). Late Neoliberalism: The Financialization of Homeownership and Housing Rights. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(3), 1058-1066. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12062
Rolnik, R., & Royer, L. d. O. (2014). O programa Minha Casa Minha Vida nas Regiões Metropolitanas de São Paulo e Campinas: aspectos socioespaciais e segregação Paper presented at the III Encontro da Associação Nacional de Pesquisa e Pós-graduação em Arquitetura e Urbanismo; Arquitetura, cidade e projeto: uma construção coletiva Sao Paulo.
Ronald, R. (2005). Meanings of property and home ownership consumption in divergent socio-economic conditions. In J. Doling & M. Elsinga (Eds.), Home ownership. Getting in, getting from, gettin out. Part II (Vol. 30). Delft: IOS Press.
Ronald, R. (2008). the ideology of Home Owernship: Homeownwer Societies and the Housing of Housing Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ronald, R., & Hirayama, Y. (2006). Housing Commodities, Context and Meaning: Transformations in Japan’s Urban Condominium Sector. Urban Studies, 43(13), 2467-2483.
Rosen, G., & Walks, A. (2013). Rising cities: Condominium development and the private transformation of the metropolis. Geoforum, 49(0), 160-172. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.06.010
Ruonavaara, H. (1993). Types and forms of housing tenure: Towards solving the comparison/translation problem Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 10(1), 3-20.
Ruttan, Lore M. (2006). Sociocultural Heterogeneity and the Commons. Current Anthropology, 47(5), 843-853. doi:10.1086/507185
Saunders, P. (1990). A Nation of Home Owners. London: Unwin Hyman.
Scanlon, E. (1998). Low-Income Homeownership Policy as a Community Development Strategy. Journal of Community Practice, 5(1-2), 137-154. doi:10.1300/J125v05n01_09
Schlager, E., & Ostrom, E. (1992). Property-Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis. Land Economics, 68(3), 249-262. doi:10.2307/3146375
Simpson, B. (2006). Social Identity and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas. Rationality and Society, 18(4), 443-470. doi:10.1177/1043463106066381
Simpson, B., Willer, R., & Ridgeway, C. L. (2012). Status Hierarchies and the Organization of Collective Action. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 149-166. doi:10.1177/0735275112457912
Soaita, A. M. (2012). Strategies for In Situ Home Improvement in Romanian Large Housing Estates. Housing Studies, 27(7), 1008-1030. doi:10.1080/02673037.2012.725833
SØrensen, E., & Torfing, J. (Eds.). (2007). Theories of Democratic Network Governance. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Stephens, M. (2011). Comparative Housing Research: A ‘System-Embedded’ Approach. International Journal of Housing Policy, 11(4), 337-355. doi:10.1080/14616718.2011.626598
Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. Newbury Park : Sage.
Straub, A. (2002). Strategic technical management of housing stock: lessons from Dutch housing associations. Building Research & Information, 30(5), 372-381. doi:10.1080/09613210210150955
Termeer, C. J. A. M., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (1997). Managing Perceptions in Networks In W. J. M. Kickert, E.-H. Klijn, & J. F. M. Koppenjan (Eds.), Managing Complex Networks. Strategies for the Public Sector (pp. 79-97). London: SAGE.
Toussaint, J. (2011). Housing wealth in retirement strategies. Towards understanding and new hypotheses (Vol. 42). Delft: IOS Press.
UN-HABITAT. (2010). 5 Selected Topics of the Latin American Habitat (5 Temas Selectos del Hábitat Latinoamericano). Retrieved from
UN-HABITAT. (2011). Affordable Land and Housing in Latin America and the Caribbean. Retrieved from Nairobi:
UN-HABITAT. (2014). The Right to Adequate Housing. Retrieved from Geneva: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FS21_rev_1_Housing_en.pdf
Van Bortel, G. (2012). Institutions and Governance Networks in Housing and Urban Regeneration. In S. J. Smith, M. Elsinga, L. F. O’Mahony, O. S. Eng, S. Wachter, & S. Tsenkova (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Housing and Home (Vol. 4, pp. 93-98). Oxford: Elsevier.
Van Bortel, G. (2016). Networks and Fault lines. Understanding the role of housing associations in neighborhood regeneration: a network governance perspective. Delft: Delft University of Technology
Van der Heijden, H. (2013). West European Housing Systems in a Comparative Perspective (Vol. 46). Delft: IOS.
Van Weesep, J. (1984). Condominium Conversion in Amsterdam: Boon or Burden? . Urban Geography, 5(2), 165-177. doi:10.2747/0272-3638.5.2.165
Van Weesep, J. (1987), “The creation of a new housing sector: condominiums in the United States”. Housing Studies 2, 122-133
Ward, P., Jiménez, E., & Virgilio, M. D. (Eds.). (2014). Housing Policy in Latin American Cities. A New Generation of strategies and Approaches for 2016 UN Habitat III. New York: Routledge.
Werczberger, E., & Ginsberg, Y. (1987). Maintenance of shared property in low-income condominiums. Housing Studies, 2(3), 192-202.
Williamson, O. E. (2000). The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3), 595-613. doi:doi: 10.1257/jel.38.3.595
Yau, Y. (2011). Collectivism and activism in housing management in Hong Kong. Habitat International, 35, 327-334.
Yau, Y. (2012). Normas, sentido de comunidad y colectivismo comunal en un contexto de edificios en altura. Revista INVI, 27, 17-72.
Yau, Y. (2014). Perceived efficacies and collectivism in multi-owned housing management. Habitat International, 43(0), 133-141. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2014.02.009
Yau, Y., & Ho, D. C. W. (2009). The effects of building managment practices on residential property prices in Hong Kong. Journal of Building Appraisal, 4, 157-167. doi:10.1057/jba.2008.42
Yip, N. M. (2010). Management Rights in Multi-owned Properties in Hong Kong. In S. Blandy, A. Dupuis, & J. Dixon (Eds.), Multi-owned housing: law, power and practice (pp. 109-124). Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited
Zanetta, C. (2001). The Evolution of the World Bank’s urban lending in Latin America: from sites and services to municipal reform and beyond. Habitat International, 25(4), 513-533.
